Skip to main content
Glama

CiteStamp

by com.citestamp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What refutes

what_refutes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Edges recorded as REFUTING the given work or claim: human-signed refutations plus failed replication outcomes coded by the FORRT Replication Database. Use when a user asks whether a finding failed to replicate or has been contradicted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum edges to return per tier (default 100, max 1000). Well-cited works have thousands; the response reports has_more and inferred_total so you can tell a page from the whole answer.
offsetNoHow many edges to skip, for paging. Advance by the LIMIT you asked for, not by the number of results you got back — duplicates are removed after the window is taken, so a page can return fewer rows than it consumed. Keep going while has_more is true.
identifierYesDOI, arXiv id, OpenAlex id, or internal claim id
asserted_onlyNoIf true, restrict to human-signed (asserted) edges. If false (default), return both asserted and machine-inferred edges.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "description": "Maximum edges to return per tier (default 100, max 1000). Well-cited works have thousands; the response reports has_more and inferred_total so you can tell a page from the whole answer.",
+  "maximum": 1000,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "How many edges to skip, for paging. Advance by the LIMIT you asked for, not by the number of results you got back — duplicates are removed after the window is taken, so a page can return fewer rows than it consumed. Keep going while has_more is true.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful provenance context beyond that — the edges are human-signed and/or coded from the FORRT Replication Database, and there are inferred vs asserted tiers — which helps an agent interpret results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the relation and its sources, the second states when to invoke it. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description identifies what the returned edges represent and their provenance, and the parameter docs explain paging/coverage signals. Adequate for an agent to call and interpret it, though return shape itself is not described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are unusually rich (paging caveats, has_more/inferred_total semantics, asserted_only meaning). The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 is correct — the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (refutes) and resource (edges recorded against the given work/claim), and names the concrete provenance sources (human-signed refutations, FORRT replication failures). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like what_supports and what_cites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggering context: 'Use when a user asks whether a finding failed to replicate or has been contradicted.' That is a clear when-to-use statement, though it does not name the contrastive sibling (what_supports) explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CiteStamp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources